Search

This paper examines the intervention of the international community ? and specifically the form of new multilateralism activated by the Organization of American States (OAS) ? to crises in Peru and Venezuela. Although from a comparative politics perspective, these two cases present striking contrasts, with respect to the study of global governance it is the commonalities in the response that attractions attention. Reshaping existing regional sovereignty norms and practices, both interventions contained extensive ?internal? as well as ?international? components in which the boundaries or barriers between diplomacy and domestic politics were blurred. The centrepiece of both initiatives was the establishment of a ?mesa,? an OAS-facilitated dialogue roundtable or forum involving key domestic political and civil society actors from government and opposition in a sustained collective effort to negotiate a consensual and peaceful solution to political crisis. In the body of the work the process of this ?tale of two mesas? is traced through three distinctive components: the actors at the table; the agendas; and, relative achievements. As our paper demonstrates, significant differences between the two mesa processes make it difficult to articulate a single, coherent model. Nonetheless, we conclude that both the Peruvian and Venezuelan mesas exemplify a promising mode of multilateral intervention: ?intervention without intervening.? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper attempts to understand how domestic security threats shape state institutions and regime structures. More specifically, it discusses the impact of insurgency movements on the nature of civil-military relations and democratic openings in a country. This is an important theoretical question with great policy relevance. For centuries, civilian leaders have struggled with the problem of subordinating militaries to their authority. The lack of civilian control has become a major factor that blocked the consolidation of democracies in numerous countries. Political science literature has, so far, failed to provide a well-developed answer to this research question. Although the majority of the scholars believe that domestic security threats inevitably lead to an increase in the political involvement of the armed forces (Huntington, 1962; Stepan, 1976; O’Donnell, 1979; Hunter, 1997; Desch, 1999; etc), similar levels and types of internal security threats have, in fact, divergent effects on civil-military relations and broader regime-related questions. To understand the causes of this variation, I conduct a comparative case study by focusing on two countries, namely Turkey and Peru, which have fought against Kurdistan Workers’ Party and Shining Path insurgents, respectively, from the 1980s onwards. With this study, I intend to show that the presence of an internal threat is not a sufficient condition to account for changes in civil-military relations and regime structures. Instead, I discuss the importance of strategic interests and calculations of civilian governments and their armed forces, as well as the silent bargaining process between these actors in explaining this research question. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although not known for interstate conflict, Latin American nations do go to war. The 1995 war between Ecuador and Peru, countries considered to be in the US sphere of influence during the Cold War, provides an opportunity to examine possible domestic reasons for war. Why did a border dispute that festered for half a century suddenly become hot, particularly in the post-Cold War period with the US the clear regional and global hegemon? In this paper, I examine possible explanations, including whether the war was simply accidental to the attempt by leaders to use the conflict to garner political support--the rally round the flag effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the impact of strategies employed by democratizing rivals in South America on the prospects for consolidating democracy. It explores the relations between two pairs of rivals from South America, namely Argentina and Chile and Ecuador and Peru. It examines the effects of the approach in resolving rivalry adopted by domestic and international actors which focused on the pragmatic aspects of cooperation. The author cites the benefits of including the military into internationalist agendas of rival countries, Argentina and Chile.

Why do state leaders sometimes choose risky foreign policy options? Rational leaders are expected to instigate conflict with the anticipation of winning the conflict. However, sometimes leaders enter into conflict when the odds of winning are against them. Prospect theory offers a possible explanation for behavior of leaders who does not follow rational expectations. The past weighs heavily on present decision-making and leaders in a frame of losses may engage in risky foreign policy behavior to recoup what they believe is rightfully theirs. Loss of territory is a particularly salient issue for leaders of sovereign nations. This paper will examine decision-making during the lengthy territorial conflict between Ecuador and Peru in terms of the expectations of rational choice and prospect theory. Since the time of independence both countries have disputed their shared borders with the most recent militarized dispute taking place in 1995. Examination of a dispute lasting over a century provides an opportunity to analyze a case across time and leaders. This investigation will focus on the decision-making process of Ecuadorian and Peruvian leaders during outbreaks of fighting during the lengthy dispute to determine whether rational choice or prospect theory offers a better explanation for the behavior of these leaders under conditions of risk. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Amnesty laws in Argentina, Uruguay and Peru were passed by civilian governments to prevent prosecution of members of the military and police forces accused of committing human rights violations during periods of military rule and/or internal conflict. Yet victim-survivors and family members of victims, human rights activists and lawyers, and progressive academics continued to seek ways to hold those responsible for rights abuses accountable. In each country, however, local groups have adopted different strategies in their pursuit of retributive justice. The paper will explore the different relationships local groups in each country have developed with transnational human rights networks, how they have sought to relate to international and regional human rights bodies in their pursuit of retributive justice, and how this has shaped local understandings of human rights, justice, and accountability. In Argentina and Peru, where local groups actively sought out alliances with transnational human rights groups and brought cases before international and regional human rights bodies such as the Inter-American Court for Human Rights, the amnesty laws were successfully overturned, and in both countries trials have begun moving forward. In Uruguay, where a civic movement failed to overturn the amnesty law using domestic mechanisms (a referendum), efforts to develop transnational networks and use international mechanisms of redress have developed more slowly, and the amnesty law remains in place. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]